2
Roger Ebert’s Star System: How Film Criticism Scoring Changed Movie Watching
Before streaming algorithms told you what to watch, before IMDb scores ruled your choices, there was Roger Ebert’s star system. Four stars. Three and a half. Two. Sometimes just one. And sometimes, the rarest of all - zero. No review, no summary, no fancy language. Just stars. And for millions, those stars were the final word on whether a movie was worth your time.
How Roger Ebert’s Star System Actually Worked
Ebert didn’t invent the star rating, but he made it matter. He used a simple scale: four stars meant a great film, three meant good, two meant mediocre, one meant bad, and zero meant no value at all - not just poorly made, but morally or artistically empty. He didn’t give half-stars lightly. A three-and-a-half-star review was a rare endorsement, usually reserved for films that didn’t quite reach greatness but still moved you.
His ratings weren’t arbitrary. He’d watch a movie once, take notes, then think about it for days. He didn’t score based on special effects, star power, or box office potential. He scored on emotional truth. Did the film feel real? Did it change how you saw the world? Did it stick with you after the credits rolled? That’s what mattered.
Take Terminator 2. It got four stars. Not because it had groundbreaking CGI - though it did - but because Ebert wrote, “It’s a movie about a mother’s love, disguised as a robot action film.” That’s the kind of insight that made his ratings feel personal, not mechanical.
Why His System Was Different From Modern Ratings
Today, movie ratings are numbers on a scale of 1 to 10, averaged from thousands of users. You get a 7.8 on IMDb, and you assume it’s science. But Ebert’s system was art. One critic. One voice. One set of values.
Compare that to Rotten Tomatoes. There, a film can have a 90% score with 200 critics, but if 100 of them gave it 5/10 and 100 gave it 10/10, it still looks perfect. Ebert wouldn’t have allowed that. He didn’t believe in averaging opinions. He believed in owning your judgment.
He also didn’t fear being unpopular. He gave Shakespeare in Love four stars when critics called it lightweight. He gave The Room zero stars - not because it was bad, but because he thought it was a waste of human effort. He didn’t care if you liked it. He cared if it meant anything.
The Impact on How People Chose Movies
In the 1980s and 90s, people didn’t scroll through trailers on YouTube. They read newspapers. They watched Ebert and Siskel on TV. And when they saw that thumbs-up, they went to the theater. When they saw two thumbs down, they stayed home.
His star system became a cultural shorthand. Parents used it to decide if a movie was appropriate. College students debated whether a three-star film was worth the price of a ticket. Film clubs based their selections on his ratings. He didn’t just review movies - he shaped moviegoing habits.
Even after he lost his voice to cancer, his ratings lived on. His website kept his reviews archived. His star system stayed unchanged. People still check his old reviews before watching a classic. Why? Because his ratings still feel honest.
What Happened to the Star System After He Died?
Ebert died in 2013. The world moved on. Streaming platforms took over. Algorithms replaced critics. Now, Netflix tells you what to watch based on what you clicked last week. Amazon Prime shows you “popular titles in your area.”
But the star system didn’t disappear. It just got diluted. Many critics still use stars. But most don’t mean them the same way. Some give four stars to every superhero movie. Others use half-stars like punctuation, not precision.
Some outlets even replaced stars with emojis - a thumbs-up, a frowning face, a fire emoji. But emojis don’t carry weight. They don’t make you think. Ebert’s stars did. A single star meant something. It meant the film failed on a human level.
There’s a reason his reviews still get shared on Twitter and Reddit. People miss the certainty. They miss the voice. They miss knowing someone else cared enough to judge a movie by its soul, not its budget.
Why His System Still Matters Today
Today, we’re drowning in choices. There are over 10,000 films on Netflix alone. You can’t watch them all. You need filters. But most filters are broken. They tell you what’s popular, not what’s meaningful.
Ebert’s system works because it’s simple, but not simplistic. It doesn’t pretend to be objective. It admits: this is one person’s reaction. And that’s the point. You don’t need a crowd to tell you what to watch. You need one person who knows what matters.
His ratings weren’t about telling you what to think. They were about showing you how to feel. A four-star film wasn’t just well-made - it made you feel something real. That’s why people still read his old reviews. Not to find out if a movie is good. But to find out if it matters.
How to Use Ebert’s System Today
You don’t need to be a critic to use his approach. Here’s how to apply his thinking to your own movie choices:
- Watch a movie once. Don’t rush. Let it settle.
- Ask: Did it change how I see something? Did it make me feel something I didn’t expect?
- Don’t compare it to other movies. Compare it to your life.
- Give it a star rating based on emotional impact, not technical skill.
- Write it down. Even if no one else reads it.
Try it with a film you watched last month. What would Ebert have said? Would he have given it one star for being empty? Or four for making you cry on the couch? That’s the power of his system. It turns watching into thinking.
The Lasting Legacy of a Simple Idea
Roger Ebert didn’t invent film criticism. He didn’t invent ratings. But he gave them meaning. He turned a simple set of stars into a moral compass for cinema.
His system worked because it was human. It didn’t rely on data. It relied on feeling. And in a world where algorithms decide what we see, that’s the most radical thing of all.
Today, you can find a thousand reviews for any movie. But you’ll never find another critic who made you feel like you were sitting across from him at a diner, talking about life through the lens of a film. That’s the real legacy of the star system. Not the stars themselves - but the voice behind them.
Did Roger Ebert ever give a movie zero stars?
Yes. Roger Ebert gave zero stars to films he believed had no artistic or moral value - not just bad ones, but ones that felt like a waste of time and effort. Examples include The Room, Manos: The Hands of Fate, and Howard the Duck. He didn’t give zero stars lightly. He reserved them for films that offended his sense of what cinema should be.
How did Ebert’s star ratings compare to modern platforms like IMDb or Rotten Tomatoes?
Ebert’s ratings were personal and singular - one critic’s deep, reflective judgment. IMDb and Rotten Tomatoes average hundreds or thousands of ratings, often from casual viewers. A film can have a high score on those platforms with little critical consensus. Ebert’s system rejected averages. He believed one thoughtful voice mattered more than a crowd’s opinion.
Why did Ebert use half-stars in his ratings?
Ebert used half-stars to capture nuance without losing clarity. A three-and-a-half-star rating meant the film was very good but not quite great - perhaps brilliant in some areas, flawed in others. He avoided arbitrary grading. Half-stars let him express that a film was close to excellence without pretending it was perfect.
Did Ebert’s star system influence other critics?
Absolutely. Many critics adopted his four-star scale, and some still use it today. Even outlets that switched to numerical scores or emojis often cite Ebert as their inspiration. His system became the gold standard for personal, thoughtful criticism. It showed that ratings could be more than marketing tools - they could be expressions of taste and values.
Are Ebert’s reviews still relevant today?
Yes. His reviews are archived on his official website and are still widely read. People turn to them not just for opinions on old films, but for how to think about cinema. His writing offers clarity in a noisy world. He didn’t just rate movies - he taught people how to watch them.
